I agree, this is far, far too wide-open to be anything other than a GWIT, and so many opportunities to enlighten us have been squandered (the 'message' is too loose, the title repeats what we already know and the preamble adds very little).
I've gone for an obscure candidate in the middle and left it at that (the possibilities seem endless for such a disparate group). If the setter had stuck with candidates from a particular set there'd be plenty of material, so why this?
My numbers tally with yours and I'm also dubious about the 'equivalence' being accurate... I'm not wild about the 1st candidate's 'ownership' either (so, 2 out of 5 for me - a pity, because I enjoyed the fill).